Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180910161143.GA1053@infradead.org>
References: <20180906140628.GA10580@infradead.org> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809081241310.1402@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20180910132924.GA6987@infradead.org> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809101533330.1292@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809101536410.1292@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20180910133902.GB21593@infradead.org> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809101544560.1292@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20180910134915.GB30774@infradead.org> <CAAhSdy1be_ibiowifBdgBZjbHuFU=CR4rZXQDwQghVYkex5bMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809101805110.1419@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20180910161143.GA1053@infradead.org>
From:   Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>
Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 22:05:42 +0530
Message-ID: <CAAhSdy0kgsy0QFDQGYeVy6vxu8v7UwRGbdJC9Hhz+36TNYjyGA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] irqchip: RISC-V Local Interrupt Controller Driver
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 9:41 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 06:07:12PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > Considering above, it is better to have a distinct irqchip and
>> > irq_domain for all local interrupts (just like this patch).
>>
>> If that's the future usage
>
> It's not, at least there has been no proposal for that so far, and I
> don't really think it is how the architecture was intended.
>
>> and that's what my impression was, under which I
>> changed my mind, yes, then having a domain model is certainly of advantage
>> especially when those things end up being different per SoC.
>
> And even if we went down the way of using the other bits it would
> be architectureal in the RISC-V spec - these are not available for
> vendor specific uses.

I am quite sure RISC-V spec does not restrict the use of other
local interrupts. Different CPU implementations can have their
own local interrupts.

Regards,
Anup